L. Malleshwar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3940 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                     W.P.No.13752 of 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the transfer order

dated 06.07.2021 against which the petitioner was

transferred.

This Court has heard Smt. V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V.V.Aparna Lakshmi

appearing for the main answering respondent No.3.

With the consent of the counsels, the writ petition was

taken up. The action of the 2nd respondent in transferring the

petitioner is the subject matter of challenge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that basing

upon a complaint of an alleged incident of offensive language

being used, the petitioner was transferred. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that basing upon the complaint of

respondent No.6 to respondent No.2, the same was referred to

Joint Collector for enquiry. The Committee under the

Chairmanship of Joint Collector pertaining to complaints of

Sexual Harassment at Work Places conducted enquiry and

held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not

proved. Learned counsel submits that once the complaint

against the petitioner is held to be not proved, the further

directions that were issued to transfer the petitioner are not

correct. He points out that transfer in this case is punitive

and is based on non-application of mind. It is his submission

that if the charges against the petitioner are proved, there can

be a reason or a rationale for transferring the petitioner, but

in this case, admittedly as the charges are not proved,

transferring the petitioner only on the ground of keeping of

the decorum in the office is not correct. Learned counsel for

the petitioner therefore vehemently argues that this is a

transfer for extraneous reasons and the Court must interfere.

He relies upon the judgment in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of

India and others1 to argue that the transfer order in the

present case is actuated by malice in law since it is based on

irrelevant ground. He points out that in the case before the

Supreme Court, an anonymous complaint was filed against

the petitioner. That order was set aside. Learned counsel for

the petitioner argues that the petitioner is on a better ground

as an enquiry was held and he was completely exonerated.

Therefore, learned counsel argues that this is a fit case to set

aside the order of punishment.

Smt. Aparna Lakshmi appearing for the main

contesting respondent relies upon the counter affidavit filed

for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and argues that this is not a case

of mala fide transfer. She points out that it is a fact that a

complaint was lodged against the petitioner. It is also a fact

that the ultimate result of the complaint was that the

(2009) 2 SCC 592

allegations against the petitioner were not proved. However,

she points out that in the interest of the administration and

to keep up the decorum in the office all the three persons who

were involved in the issue were transferred in order to ensure

the office decorum and decency are kept up. It is also stated

that as the three employers caused disturbance and nuisance

in the office and were not attending to their duties properly,

the impugned order came to be passed. Interestingly, the

standing counsel also relies upon Somesh Tiwari's case (1

supra) to argue that that was a case of non-existing

facts/anonymous complaint, but this was a case of facts

which existed but were not duly proved. Therefore, she

submits that the judgment in Somesh Tiwari's case

supports the case of the respondents.

She points out that the only ground on which the

Court can interfere is a case of mala fide exercise of power.

In the case on hand, she submits that it is not a question of

mala fide exercise of power, and it is based upon relevant

grounds namely, to keep up the decorum in the office. In

addition, she also relies upon two other judgments which are

cited by her along with a written note. These are Mrs. Shilpi

Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others 2 and

Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras v.

R.Perachi and others3. Learned counsel points out that

AIR 1991 SCC 532

(2011) 12 SC 137

relying upon the case of Mrs.Shilpi Bose's at para 4 that a

Government servant like the petitioner has no vested right to

remain at a place and that the Court should not interfere in

such matters. If the transfer order is passed in violation of

executive instructions, the Court should not interfere and the

petitioner should be directed to approach the higher

authorities. Similarly, relying upon the judgment of

R.Perachi's case (3 supra), it is argued that even in that case,

the inquiry was based on an anonymous complaint. The

transfer was made to another District, but with the same pay

and seniority. No observation was made against him in order

to see any stigma attached. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the transfer should not be interfered with.

Relying on these two judgments, learned counsel submits

that the case of the petitioner should be dismissed.

This Court, after considering both the submissions,

notices that there is no serious dispute about the facts. That

the enquiry found that the charges were not proved is also

not in doubt. But the fact to be considered is whether the

impugned order which transferred all the three members

involved in the issue can be interfered with or not. A reading

of the language in the order dated 06.07.2021 shows that it is

done to keep up the decorum of the office and all the three

are directed to be sent to other posts on administrative

grounds so as to restore harmony in the Office. It is

mentioned that continuing all the three would create further

friction and adversely effective functioning of the office.

Therefore, it was decided to transfer them out so as to send a

message to others not to fight for petty issues and thereby the

decorum of the office. The question is - can this be called a

mala fide action?

In the opinion of the Court this cannot be classified as

mala fide action and is a transfer on administrative grounds.

It is not a transfer which is contrary to any statutory rule. As

noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of

R.Perachi's case (3 supra), no adverse remarks are noted

against the petitioner. This Court by the very nature of the

enquiry, under Article 226 is not in a position to find

anything wrong with the impugned order and its contents.

Maintenance of harmony and decorum are important to

ensure smooth functioning of any office. If the petitioner

alone was transferred and others were retained, may be a

case could have been made out by the petitioner. But the fact

remains that all the three persons involved in the issue were

transferred on administrative grounds in order to maintain

the decorum, to ensure that such petty quarrels are not

encouraged and also send a message to the others in the

office that such conduct will not be encouraged.

These three reasons are germane and logical in the

opinion of this Court. They do not bring the case within the

limited ambit of mala fide action for this Court to interfere.

The action is not taken in bad faith but is supported by

reasons which the Court finds are logical.

Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

this case, considering the issues raised and the case law cited

etc., this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to the

relief as prayed for.

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to

costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 06.10.2021 KLP